Should central banks
be concerned with inequality? Traditionally, that is the domain of
elected politicians. In fact, the crisis has seen a further blurring
of the responsibilities of central bankers. Since the 1970s, monetary
policy had been seen a highly technical area with a single instrument
(the interest rate) and a single goal (controlling inflation). So it
was natural to hand it over to officials.
The crisis has
forced central bankers to expand their toolkit, and to make a much
wider range of decisions – some of which have distributional
effects. (So did interest rate hikes, but this used to be quietly
ignored.)
Many Renaissance
Italian city-states had a form of democracy. This democracy declined
when the states began to hire experts as “city managers” -
signori or capitani del popolo. Often these managers were from
outside the city itself, rather as central bankers like Mark Carney
are hired on a global market. As outsiders they could get things done
in a way the squabbling democratic parties could not. But their rise
hollowed out democratic power. Eventually, democracy became the
“dignified”, not the “efficient” part of government.
No comments:
Post a Comment